Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.R.
appeal from the Probate Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Hinojosa.
ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice.
an accelerated appeal of the trial court's order
committing appellant, S.R., to a mental health facility for
the provision of temporary mental health services.
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
574.070(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). By one issue,
appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to
support the trial court's commitment order in appellate
cause number 13-17-00129-CV. We affirm.
evidence at the commitment hearing showed the following. In
December 2016, while responding to a welfare concern, a
McAllen police officer found appellant sitting on a street
curb wrapped in a blanket with her dog. According to the
police officer, appellant had been seen wandering the streets
the day before and appeared to be talking to her daughter
although nobody was in her immediate presence. Appellant was
not able to tell the officer where she lived. The police
officer contacted appellant's daughters, but efforts to
reunite appellant with her daughters were unsuccessful. The
police officer then contacted appellant's mother.
Appellant's mother agreed to take possession of
appellant's dog but stated that she and appellant's
daughters were afraid of appellant.Thereafter, appellant was
taken to a mental health hospital to be evaluated by a
doctor. The doctor testified, among other things, that
appellant was suffering from a delusional disorder and
extreme paranoia and was refusing to be treated at the
commitment hearing, appellant disputed the doctor's
diagnosis regarding her mental health. Appellant testified
that certain agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
are protecting her from her ex-husband and that she was
waiting on them for a ride when the McAllen police officer
approached her on the street curb. Appellant further
Appellant: [The DEA] can prove to you, sir. . . .
Trial Court: Ma'am, what are the names of the DEA agents
that you keep referring to? You said you knew their names.
What are their names?
. . . .
Appellant: Brett Turkington. I have them written down.
Trial Court: When was the last time that you say you talked
to that person? Just tell me the last time you say you talked
to Brett Turkington with the DEA.
Appellant: Well, through the devices I speak with they [sic],
Trial Court: When was the last time you spoke to them?
Appellant: Today. Through this device you can speak with
Trial Court: What device, ma'am?
Appellant: It's put in the ear. I don't know exactly
where, but you can call them and they'll tell you.
Trial Court: You spoke to him. Anyone else you spoke to
today? Did you advise him of this hearing today?
Appellant: They-they-yeah, they know of it, yes. Another one-
. . . .
Trial Court: Okay. Who else did you-you started telling me
someone else you talked to.
Appellant: Jack Arnold.
Trial Court: When was the last time you talked to or had
communication with Jack Arnold?
Appellant: I speak with him daily.
. . . .
Trial Court: Do you have a phone number for them?
Appellant: I do not have a phone number because I don't
need to because of how I get to ...